I doubt if the Tony Martin debate will lead to any changes in the law on self-defence - the concept of reasonable force cannot easily be defined further - nor result in the abolition of the pernicious mandatory life sentence, which Jack Straw is protecting just as adamantly as his Tory predecessors. But perhaps the case will provoke a discussion on another piece of flawed legislation - the Contempt of Court Act 1981 on juries.

As it stands, it seems to me that it will totally preclude any investigation into a jury's verdict, to see if it was tainted, as has been suggested (though by no means substantiated) in the Martin case. Under section 8, it's a contempt "to obtain, disclose or solicit any particulars of statements made, opinions expressed, arguments advanced or votes cast by members of a jury in the course of their deliberations". That is a very firm ban.

In a Martin-type case, it wouldn't be enough for a juror just to say "I felt intimidated" for the verdict to be overturned. The point would be whether or not that affected the jury's decision, and I do not see how that can be ascertained without looking into what happened in the jury room, and that can't be done because of section 8.

A few years ago, the appeal court did manage to quash a jury's verdict when it emerged that some of the jurors had used a ouija board to help them determine the accused's guilt. But because the jury was staying overnight in a hotel at the time, and not all the jurors had participated in the ouija session, the appeal court was able to say that there hadn't been 'jury deliberations' as covered by the Act. That was exceptional.

The appeal court would normally not even think of entering the jury-room, so to speak. (In one case in the 1960s, they even refused to consider evidence that the foreman had read out to his fellow jurors the accused's previous convictions, which neither he nor they were supposed to know about).

I believe the law is too harsh. In principle it is right that a jury's deliberations should be confidential. But there need to be exceptions where breaching that confidentiality is the only - I stress only - way of preventing a greater injustice.

I happened to be reading the article I'd written on gun litigation that appears just to the right - I rarely read my own work; it's painful enough to write it without imposing that extra burden - when the idea suddenly struck me. I have the answer to the Pokemon menace taking over the world's children - litigation. Here is the law.

The Pokemon people are releasing a dangerous thing into the community. They know that the competition for some of the Pokemon cards is so intense that children are being pressured, threatened with violence (sometimes with knives) and robbed by other children determined to get the cards.

The makers of the cards have a duty of care towards their consumers, the children. They are negligent in releasing the cards in such a way as to provoke widespread unrest, tension and fighting. Ergo, there is a claim in law. I am now trying to work out a way for parents to sue for their mental distress in having to sit through the Pokémon film.